Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: OT (slightly) What is the "best" processor for a new project?
References: <088a35b6-5c19-4197-817b-25d08c7276e1@googlegroups.com> <7xwqqhslua.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <ko5l4f$diq$1@dont-email.me> <7xehcpc5ez.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <5682cd8a-fb07-46bc-9096-d3ad17a4387f@googlegroups.com> <7xa9ncdgh1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <D8udnRfXXNl-1zrMnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@supernews.com> <7xd2s8edej.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <rtmdnQTj4Kmy6DrMnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@supernews.com> <7x61y0qtdj.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <ko8jhj$3v8$1@online.de> <7x61xzpoal.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <kob481$550$1@online.de> <7xvc5y8ekz.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <kod64p$p53$1@online.de> <7x61xxoszz.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <kogm5q$kcl$1@online.de> <7xip1uy528.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <GdWdnYigtORp_TDMnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@supernews.com> <854nde8laa.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <3I6dna-Z0ohaCDDMnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@supernews.com>
From: Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org>
Organization: nocrew
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:46:40 +0200
Message-ID: <85txle6z67.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:riR9kHA1h1F+97+88TwI+OBHzc4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.229.87.73
X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk DXC=n0`>IibQRY71@QH[VaTAe9YSB=nbEKnk;TB9ZjHPY?C3@ON7A^J=915:[KId_d;k;?ecS2QjHQi^7HL>PhDc7Db5A@RQ[nH6m7?
X-Complaints-To: staff@sunsite.dk
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:23154

Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
> Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
>> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>>> Truthfully, having worked with the FORTH, Inc. multitasker (I
>>> can't speak for other cooperative multitaskers) for over 30 years,
>>> in a very wide variety of applications, I have never encountered a
>>> situation that led us to consider a basic change in the algorithm.
>>
>> How about your multiuser offerings?  Did (do) they use cooperative
>> multitasking as well?
>
> It's all the same. A "user" has a larger set of private "user
> variables" and extended capabilities, but is part of the same
> tasking system.

I was thinking that a multiuser system would benefit from preemptive
multitasking, to prevent an uncareful user from grabbing 100% of the
CPU time.

But then, I guess the multiuser Forths didn't provide any memory
protection between users.  So perhaps the system was not only relying
on cooperative multitasking, but ultimately on cooperative users?